An Epidemic of Troubled Children. Why?

We read in the papers about the rising rate of suicide and other emotional problems among teenagers.   People point to societal causes to explain what is happening, but while those factors have an effect, that is not the real problem.

We have seen articles questioning the role of parents in mass shootings.   These articles focus on parents not observing or acting on signs that their sons are radicalized.   But while this is often true, that is not the real problem,

The uncomfortable and inconvenient truth is that every troubled child, boy or girl, is troubled primarily because of the way they have been raised, the interactions they have had first and foremost with their parents as well as with siblings, their peers, and the world around them. 

It's not that most parents don't love their children and show them affection and attention.   It's that parents have their own problems and needs, their own distractions, and so they both cannot provide their young child with the love and attention he or she needs and they often react to their child out of anger, short temper or stress, for example calling the child bad, or stupid, lazy, or other pejorative phrases. 

This interaction, this accumulation of life experiences by the child, results in him or her feeling insecure and not good about themselves, feeling fear and anxiety.   This is the beginning of a life pattern that grows and deepens, like a cancer, until if the hurt is deep and bad enough, the child becomes a sociopath, capable of inflicting the harm caused by a mass shooter. 

But these children who commit mass shootings are just the tip of an iceberg, of an alarming problem in our society.   They are the extreme case of an epidemic of children who feel insecure, who don't feel good about themselves. 

I see this every day in the elementary and middle schools where I teach.   Children exhibit behavior problems which are not part of the natural process of growing up or experiencing new hormonal urges.   These are problems which are well established in these children by the time they reach school age and continue to deepen.   

It is no exaggeration to say that in a class of 20 children, there are typically only one or two who are well balanced and obviously feel good about themselves.   And by that i don't mean that they feel they are great or special, better than others; I mean that they simply feel good about themselves, they are comfortable in their skins. 

Why is this happening?  The problem is that child raising in our society has been a case of insecure parents raising insecure children who become insecure parents who raise insecure children who  . . . 

To some extent, this has perhaps always been the case, but it has become much worse since the industrial revolution and then in modern times as parents have become involved in work or activities which are not fulfilling and leave them stressed, as money and material things have gained importance, and as technology has separated human beings more from each other rather than brought them together.  This problem exists in all strata of society, whether rich or poor.

The result of the prevalence of this insecurity is that we see increasing violence and dysfunction at all levels of society – in the home, workplace, politics, and the international arena.   When people argue or act out, it is their inner child who is arguing or acting out,

Children are our future.   A child is a fragile, vulnerable person. From the moment the child leaves the womb, and even before, a child is deeply and permanently impacted by his parents’ moods and actions, as the young child is totally dependent on those around him for sustenance and nurturing. 

Every child has the potential to live a happy, wholesome, constructive, and fulfilling life regardless of their intelligence, ability, or looks.  There is no such thing as a "bad" or "stupid" or "ugly" child.   Every child deserves a happy life; that is their birthright.   

And so, it should be parents' primary responsibility to raise their children in a way that fosters in them the feeling that they are secure in themselves and happy.  We must protect children's psychic health.   But where do we start when only a happy, secure parent can raise a happy, secure child?  Are we in a cycle that cannot be stopped? 

I believe the answer is that it can be.   It requires first that parents understand the impact they have on their children.   Few parents intend to harm their children, but most in fact do, despite loving them.   It's a fact of life.   The point is not that parents should feel blame; the point is to be aware of your impact.

Second, it requires that parents take active steps to improve their own security and happiness.   These include (in brief): smiling mindfully, cherishing each passing moment, accepting ourselves/cultivating a compassion heart, accepting life, and staying grounded.   This does not require therapy, but it does require commitment and discipline because the control of our mind over our actions is great.

When parents have stepped back from the mental forces that grip them, they are able to stop and ask themselves, "Is what I am about to do or say good for my child's sense of well-being," as opposed to being on auto-pilot or doing whatever comes naturally based on their own childhood or their situation in life, be it their work, family or relationship with themselves. 

Parents cannot control what their children experience in the world out there.   But they can assure that their children are raised with a sense of self that will protect them from being damaged by the abuses they will inevitably face. 

Will the Real RINO Stand Up?

Trump and his allies have been extremely effective at changing the meaning of words in the minds of their supporters.   Thus, for example, "fake" news came to define any news from sources other than Fox News, Trump, and his allies.   While just the opposite was in fact true. The fake news is what came out of their mouths.   The other news was the truth. 

The same is true for the way RINO has been applied.   It has become the epithet for any Republican who disagrees with the Trump mantra. 

In fact, it is Trump and his allies who are truly RINOs – Republicans in name only.   Because what they stand for is not an expression or outgrowth of the traditional policy positions of the Republican Party nor what the Party has stood for during its history. 

The question that every American must ask is, how has Trump been able to so successfully manipulate the minds and hearts of the Republican base.   And we're talking not just die-hard Trump supporters, but almost the entire Republican voting base, as has been shown in recent polls regarding the "truth' of the stolen election claim. 

There are multiple reasons.   But two predominate.   The first is that a large block of these  voters,  formerly Democratic working class voters, carried huge grievances against the Democratic Party because they felt the Party had failed them and was more concerned with the plight of Blacks.   And so when Trump came and vociferously championed their cause, they supported him and continue to do so, even though he has not improved their lives in any way and actually has often acted in ways contrary to their interests. 

Second, the existence of Fox News and right-wing alternative media sources.   Before the advent of cable TV and the internet, everyone in the country got their national news from the Big 3 networks, which were solidly middle-of-the-road, nonpartisan, in their approach to the news.   The national nightly news anchors were respected by a broad spectrum of Americans.   Someone like Trump with fringe ideas could yell and scream all they wanted, but no one would hear them because their voice wasn't amplified by news coverage. 

Now, everyone watches the news that fits their beliefs.   And so Republicans watch Fox News and those on the far right have their internet outlets that fan their beliefs.   These media not only amplify the voice of Trump and his allies, but they give them credibility by mouthing their positions as their own.   The combination of their faith in Trump and their faith in their chosen media outlet makes the "fake" news phenomenon possible. 

Trump once said that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he wouldn't loose any voters.   That is not only probably true but it shows how far the brainwashing of Republicans has gone and that Trump is well aware of his power. 

There is nothing that I can imagine happening that will shake the trust of the vast majority of Republicans in Trump and his allies.   Even after Germany's loss in WWII, most Germans did not renounce their faith in Hitler.   They did not turn on him.   I fear the attachment of most Republicans to Trump lies in this same vein and they will never abandon him. 

How the West Made the War in Ukraine Almost Inevitable

The Soviet Union had collapsed, the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe were free, the world balance of power had changed; the cold war was over.  Russia was starting to work with the US and Europe as a friend.

But then policy makers and Europe decided to take advantage of the situation and expand NATO right up to Russia's borders.   Was there a threat current or future that caused this move?  No.   It was instead a visceral desire to contain Russia; a never again vow.   Russia would not even be allowed to have a reasonable zone of influence in Eastern Europe, such as the US has in the Americas.

But by so doing, the west embarked on a new cold war.   There was no question that Russia would react negatively to this move.   It was an in-your-face aggression prompted by the weakness of Russia.   

Putin became obsessed with preventing Russia from being hemmed in.   He reached out to China to secure his southeastern flank.   He fought the war in Chechnya and the Crimea.   

And then he clearly made moves indicating that he was planning on invading Ukraine.   There was lots of rhetoric about the Russian people and mother Russia, but it was mostly really all about stopping the accretion of NATO. 

The question is, given these basic facts, why didn't President Biden and the EU, prior to the Russian invasion, offer to keep the Ukraine out of NATO in exchange for Russia guaranteeing that it would never invade Ukraine?  The Ukraine did say it was not pursuing NATO membership.

This would have been no loss to the west, and a huge gain for Putin.   But Biden and other western leaders don't like to appear to give in to bullies like Putin.   And they certainly don't like giving Putin a big win domestically.  

So Ukraine is being bombarded and lives destroyed because of a desire by Biden and others to save face.

But at it's core, it's much the same mentality that has always viewed as a friend a country that was friendly to US interests regardless how barbaric and undemocratic its leadership, and to see as a foe any country that was not friendly to our interests, regardless how democratically elected they were.   It is the desire for empire, not in the old sense but in tactical control and influence.

But we aren't willing to go to war to defend this empire.   We instead use other means such as sanctions.   That's because it's really not about national interests in any true sense, certainly not one that the American people would support.   

And so the Ukrainian people suffer.  They are caught in the middle of the West and Russia not wanting to loose face and power, but the West not willing to put its military force into the equation and so leaving the ground to Russia.

The Vanished Frontier

Throughout all of man's development, there have always been frontiers, places either geographic or intellectual, where an individual could go to grow, to make a new person of himself, to make his fortune – places where anything was possible because it was an open book, man had not been there or done that before

For most of man's history, however, it was only exceptional individuals who had that opportunity.   For the vast majority of mankind, the present was their only reality and there was no knowledge of and therefore no longing for something different.  They were grounded in the knowledge of their place and value in their society.

There was no significant change in this societal dynamic until the enlightenment, when the masses came to realize that a better life was their due, resulting in revolutions occurring throughout the western world.   Later, the industrial revolution provided significantly expanded frontiers.

As recently as 100 years ago, the United States still had ample geographic frontiers and untold intellectual ones.   Even big cities like New York were frontiers because they were evolving and growing at such a rate that so much was possible, the opportunities were endless. 

After WWII, the geographic frontier shrank to almost nothing.   Not that there weren't still vast areas in the country that were wild or semi-wild, but there were no areas where man had not left his footprint, where he had not made his claims.   The days of homestead9ing were long gone. 

But intellectual frontiers were expanding at an incredible rate.   Especially in the sciences, technology, the questions to be explored were endless. 

Fast forward to the present.   There are no more frontiers really.   Not that there aren't still scientific questions to be answered, but the questions have gotten either smaller and smaller, and the payback or reward less and less, or they are so large and basic as to be Einsteinian, that even the questions are beyond the grasp of most. 

One could say that the frontier of technology in endless.   In one sense that may be true, but one can see already that advances in technology are not improving our lives; it is not as we once thought it would be.    Also we've reached the point of diminishing returns, in that technological changes are only incremental. 

In one sense, one could say that the only frontier left is making money.   There seems to always be new ways to be found to make money.   There are those who find that a driving force.   But for many, that is not the holy grail, and for those that it is, it is a spiritually empty grail.  There is nothing that enlarges man, enlarges his spirit, by making more money.

Which brings me to the point of this post.   Much has been written about the phenomenon of millennial boys and young men having little ambition; that they lack the drive that people had in the past.   They seem to be drifting. 

Some have looked to the increased role of women in the formerly exclusive masculine world of business and science to explain this.   But I think that hypothesis is not warranted. 

Instead, I think that boys and young men have no drive because they don't see possibilities open to them.   There are no frontiers that excite their imagination.   They don't see a way to be free of their past and present.   Part of that may be a failure of their education – everything seems blah to them – but I think the real reason is the lack of frontiers, the lack of challenge.   Instead they escape into the fantasy world of video games and seek refuge in technology.   This does not bode well for America's future in any sense – economically, politically, or socially. 

So what are we as a society to do?  The world is the way it is and there's nothing to be done to change it.   Perhaps the only frontier left is the spiritual one.   This has been a dead issue for a long time.   True spirituality has had no place in our society.   Yet it is needed now more than ever. 

If boys and young men came to have faith in themselves, to not look to outside things to make them feel somebody, worthy.    If they came to be open to the presence of God/Buddha inside them – not the Evangelical's God full of vengeance and hatred towards all who don't follow his lead – but the Divine essence that we are born with and can be found in our heart, which is love, light, faith, trust, humility, gratitude, compassion, joy, contentment, strength, courage, and wisdom. 

If boys and young men thus became the full potential of human beings, then they would face the world and their future with energy, to do whatever it is that they decided was meant for them.   This is my hope for the future.

Republican's "Legitimate Political Discourse"

Is there no end to the mendacity of Republican Party leaders; have they no shame?   We've heard them labeling real news, "fake" news, whereas it is their news which is fake.   We've heard their claims that the 2020 election was stolen by fraud, whereas they are the ones who have perpetuated fraud in an attempt to steal the election. 

Now we have the Republican National Committee criticizing the January 6 Special Committee, and Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for the "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."

Although Party leaders said afterwards that that description was not meant to apply to the rioters who stormed the capitol, how deceitful are they.   That is precisely what and whom the January 6 investigation is looking into.   Republican leaders – Trump acolytes all – want to have their cake and eat it too.   Not so fast!

All thinking Americans regardless of Party allegiance should rise up against this mendacious statement and say, "The attack on the capitol was not legitimate political discourse." 

Making the Titans of Finance and Industry Accept Social Responsibility

Why is our society, our world, ignoring the warnings of climate change, destroying our environment, creating ever-larger inequality even as more people are lifted out of poverty?  Why is it that the U.S. middle class, which used to be such a strong, vibrant element of our society has become weak and stagnant?

The reason for all of this lies not with the mass of people on this Earth, who have no or little control of anything, even in their own lives.   The reason lies with those with ultimate power – the corporate titans of finance and industry.   

It is they who decide what is in their corporation's best interest, which is what will make the most money in the short run, and implement that plan of action without any concern for the plan's impact on the public good or the welfare of their workers.  And it is they who largely determine the regulatory scope of government, regardless which Party is in power, and so they are in most critical areas effectively unregulated.   

This is not an indictment of capitalism, as I made clear in my post, "Is the Problem Capitalism or Our Society?"  Regardless the economic system, it is the holders of capital – whether they be aristocrats, political dictators (Communist, fascist, or otherwise), or corporate titans – that have determined the fate of their economies, their workers, and the general public.   It is thus instead an indictment of man-made society going back millennia. 

Until the dawn of the 20th century, those who controlled capital pretty much had their way.   Whether it was the robber barons of the industrial revolution or the aristocrats of the old social/political order, these people could do what they wanted and treat people, whether their workers or cottagers, as they wanted.  Income inequality was huge with the large mass of people being both poor and illiterate.   Slavery may have been the most egregious example of this system, but it was definitely part of the system. 

It was only with the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt, of all people – a wealthy Republican – that finally some people with political power felt the huge damage that those with unregulated power wreaked on the masses, while acquiring astronomical wealth.   And so the progressive era was born.   The trusts were broken up, anti-trust laws were passed, and workers were protected and empowered for the first time, both through protective laws as well as government support for the growth of labor unions.   This movement gained further momentum in the 30s because of people's reaction to capitalism during the Great Depression and the election of F.D.R. with his crusading New Deal. 

As a result, the middle class grew from a small segment at the turn of the 20th century (15 - 20%) to become the largest single bloc in the population (around 70%) and the backbone of the country's economic prosperity at its highpoint in the 1970s.  This increase came about because the lower working class had largely become middle class.   In 1970, 62% of the nation's aggregate income went to middle-class households, compared to 29% for upper-income households. 

Then Ronald Reagan was elected President and things started changing.   Central to that change was the famous Reagan line, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  

From that perspective, the dismantling of government regulations that had protected the public and workers began and gathered steam in the decades that followed.   Culminating perhaps most significantly in the repeal of the Steagall-Glass Act which was passed to regulate banks in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash.   

This repeal happened during an otherwise liberal Democratic administration (Clinton), but with wall street insiders in key cabinet positions and Republicans in control of both the House and Senate.   Efforts to reenact Steagall-Glass after the 2008 market crash and recession failed, as did efforts to regulate derivatives – all of this again under a Democratic administration with full control of Congress. 

The result of this disempowering of workers/empowering of corporations together with the forces of globalization, which began in the 1970s, resulted in the stagnation of worker's salaries.    While wages have risen (26%), their purchasing power has stayed the same during the 50 years between the 1970s and 2020; or said another way, salaries adjusted for inflation have remained the same.   While those in the top 1% rose 160% during the same period, unadjusted for inflation.

As a result of that stagnation together with many formerly middle-class workers falling back into the lower-class income category, the middle class in 2015 accounted for just under 50% of the population – a significant drop since the 70s – and accounted for only 43$ of the nation's aggregate income, down from 62% in 1970. 

The middle class was also the main victim of the finance industry's predatory lending schemes, made possible when Steagall-Glass was repealed, that were a major cause of the 2008 recession.   The recession cost the middle class not only jobs but also resulted in the foreclosure of millions of homes.   (I do not include the upper class as a main victim of the recession because although they lost heavily, they generally regained their wealth when the market rebounded.) 

Another measure of how the middle class have fared during this period is to look at income inequality.   One measure of this is that in 1929, the richest 0.1% of Americans held 25% of the country's wealth.   By the 1970s, that percentage had fallen to below 10%.   Over the past 40 years, it has again risen to around 20%.

We have gone back to the future, with those with the control of capital being largely unregulated.   Yes, we don't have child labor anymore and various other controls remain in place.   But so many have been weakened or repealed that corporations have been empowered to consider almost no interests other than their own greed.   Workers are no longer considered an asset to be nourished and grown but as a cost center to be controlled. 

Clearly, if left to their own devices, corporate leaders will not do what is in the best interest of anyone other than themselves.   They only act as responsible members of society when they are forced to by government laws. 

And so, in one post, "Toward a Reformed Capitalism," I urged the laws of incorporation be changed to force companies to consider their workers' interest as well as the public good.   Let me quote from that post:

"We must reexamine what a corporation is.  What is its function in our economy and society?

Corporations are a creature of the law.  Corporations are allowed the benefits of incorporation because they provide something of value … they are critical to the economic health of the country and of their workers.  They also thus meet a societal need.

So from a governmental/societal perspective, corporations exist to enhance the greater good.  Unfortunately, as we have seen repeatedly ever since the industrial revolution, corporations have been mostly intent on making money and so have done much that harms, that is not in keeping with, the greater good.  And typically with full knowledge of that harm.    And they have been abetted by the government's action or inaction.

The answer to this conundrum is to reform the laws under which corporations are organized by restructuring their governance.  The goal of this effort should be to make consideration of the greater good … the public interest as well as worker interest … an integral part of the corporate decision making process. "  Specific recommendations are made in the post. 

These recommendations are not unrealistic or totally novel.   Most countries in the EU require employee board-level representation.  They also require a number of "independent" directors; but these are not directors who are tasked with representing the public good, they are just tasked with preventing conflict of interest in decision making.   My recommendations go much further.

This will take strong political leadership and lock-step support from Democrats in Congress because this will certainly not be a bi-partisan effort, not in the current political climate. 

This may result in the end of corporations as we have known them, but they will still be strong and financially profitable.  As I noted in the post, this proposal does not in any way eliminate the profit motive in corporate decision making, nor the amount of profit they seek to make.   It just ensures that the public good and workers' interests are considered in the adoption of corporate plans, and so it will most likely impact the amount of profit.   

Republicans will scream, "socialism."  But this is not socialism in any form; government is not taking over the role of the private sector.   This is not even the government hovering over or involving itself in corporate decision making; it is just setting the law which corporations must follow.   

Clearly this is a change in the way things have been done.   But it is a change that is wholly in keeping with the reason why corporations are sanctioned by the government, why government gives corporations the benefits of incorporation.   And it is past due because of the havoc corporations have caused in the economy, the environment, and people's well-being due to the unregulated effect of corporate greed over the past four decades.   

It is important to note that in the period between the passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933 and its repeal in 1999, the U.S. suffered no major financial crisis – there were recessions but they were due to monetary policies or other factors.   Further, during the period of progressive corporate regulation and increasing government measures supporting low income families, income inequality decreased.   

Since the repeal of that act we have had a major financial crisis and economic downturn, major stuck market volatility.   That together with the decrease in regulation and lower-income supports since the 80s (pre-Biden) returned income inequality to its pre-Depression levels.   One measure of this is that in 1929, the richest 0.1% of Americans held 25% of the country's wealth.   By the 1970s, that percentage had fallen to below 10%.   Over the past 40 years, it has again risen to around 20%.

If we want to maintain a sound, stable economy and one that fosters greater income equality, then government must take this step to reform capitalism and our society. 

An Open Letter to Democratic Party Leaders

My fellow Democratic colleague:

In 2004, I warned in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, that our democracy was being attacked from within.  I stated that the new radical Republicans were seeking to destroy our historic values.   That the argument with them was not just about big v small government.   "At risk is the heart of our democracy, our historic values. "  A claim that found little support at the time; it was felt to be over the top.   And in that book, I set forth a vision for the Party that would counter that threat. 

Recently in The New York Times, there was an op-ed piece about whether Democrats were adding to the strength of the Republican take-over effort in 2022 and 2024 by alienating middle-class voters through it's policies.   

One commentator, expressing the same view as several others, said that "the Democratic Party over the past few decades has gotten into the position of appearing to oppose and scorn widely cherished institutions — conventional nuclear family, religion, patriotism, capitalism, wealth, norms of masculinity and femininity, then saying “vote for me.” Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me." 

The key word here is "appearing."  As I wrote in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, the Democratic Party doesn't take second place to Republicans when it comes to supporting the family, religion, patriotism, capitalism, etc.   The  record of the Party, both past and present, is clear. 

What has happened is that Democrats have for several decades allowed Republicans to successfully define them in these anti-American-values terms, distorting the essence of the Party's Liberal policies.   

There is nothing, for example, in our pro-choice policies or those supporting the LGBTQ community, that are anti-family, anti-religion, or other core historic American values; indeed, they spring from them.   They may be against what many people feel are traditional American norms, but they are not against our historic values.   And it is up to Democrats to explain this fact.

The question that I addressed in writing the book was how to combat this Republican assault and their distortion of the Democratic position.   It is not by back-tracking on Democratic support for the right to abortion, for the LGBTQ community, for fairer taxes, and other matters that are labeled by Republicans as anti-family and anti-capitalism.   

But it is certainly not in the strident positions of AOC and her fellow progressives, which alienate not only the middle class but many liberals. 

The answer, I argued, is to frame the Democratic position on these and other issues in terms of American core values – our historic documents, and especially the Declaration of Independence.   These are the sole, the heart of our democracy; they are as American as apple pie, familiar to all.   I argued at the time that Democrats must win back the hearts and minds of the American people.   The need is more acute today than ever; I just pray it is not too late. 

James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly, urged Americans to read We Still Hold These Truths, saying it "is a systematic and serious effort to make [the national values and policy] debate as clear and valuable as it can be. Agree or disagree with his specific conclusions, the questions he is asking are the right ones for the public this year."

 

I urge you to read We Still Hold These Truths and watch the YouTube video, "We Still Hold These Truths: The Democrats' Vision", https://youtu.be/NNlt8hc7GM4.  For more information on the book, go to www.westillholdthesetruths.info. 

Sincerely,

Ronald L. Hirsch

www.westillholdthesetruths.com

PreservingAmerifcanValues.blogspot.com